Pressure is mounting to normalize the use of drones in the United States.

"Don't drone, me, bro!"that's one way to sum up Charles Krauthammer's heated reaction to last week's news that the Federal Aviation Administration had loosened restrictions on local police departments' use of surveillance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

"Stop it here, stop it now," Krauthammer exclaimed on Fox News's "Special Report" Monday, "I don't want to see it hovering over anybody's home. ... I'm not encouraging, but I am predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country."

The neoconservative Krauthammer is rarely mistaken for a civil libertarian, yet here he finds himself to the left of the ACLU. And he has a point. "Drones present a unique threat to privacy," the Electronic Privacy Information Center explains; they're designed to "undertake constant, persistent surveillance," and with special equipment, they're capable of "peering inside high-level windows," perhaps even "through solid barriers, such as fences, trees and even walls."

In several cases, the Supreme Court has held that warrantless surveillance by manned aircraft doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. But small, cheap, maneuverable, and often undetectable drones may create cases in which a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.

Pressure is mounting to normalize the use of drones in the United States. A 2010 Department of Defense report emphasizes the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security's need for "routine access to U.S. airspace" in order "to execute a wide range of missions including ... surveillance and tracking operations."

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security, has seven non-weaponized Predator drones in operation, one of which it used to assist a North Dakota sheriff with an arrest last summer, and "the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations," the Los Angeles Times reported in December.

From Miami, Florida, to Arlington, Texas, local police departments have received federal grants to purchase UAVs. Police in Ogden, Utah, used federal tax dollars for a surveillance blimp outfitted with night-vision cameras. "We believe it will be a deterrent to crime when it is out and about," says the mayor.

In an incident that typifies everything wrong with the growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement, members of a Houston-area sheriff's department brought some of their coolest gear out to a defense contractor's training facility last September for a drone demonstration-slash-photo op. The $300,000 "Shadowhawk" UAV they were looking to buy with DHS grant money lost control and crashed into the SWAT Team's "Bearcat" armored personnel carrier (also purchased with DHS boodle).

Not to worrythey bought a Shadowhawk drone anyway. Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel enthused: "I absolutely believe it will become a critical component on all SWAT callouts and narcotics raids and emergency management operations."

Over the past decade, the creeping militarization of the homefront has proceeded almost unnoticed, with DHS grants subsidizing the proliferation of security cameras and military ordnance for local police departments.

On April 19, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Joe Barton, R-Texas, co-chairs of the Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, sent a letter to the head of the FAA urging the adoption of privacy protections, given the "potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance." But Congress needn't wait on Obama's FAA to start protecting Americans' privacy rights.

It's well past time we stopped sleepwalking toward dystopia and had a serious public debate about where the lines should be drawn.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute, the author of "The Cult of the Presidency," and a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where this article originally appeared.

These drones, even the small ones, operate above visual and sound detection range from the ground.

But I wonder if a very narrow beam microphone could be mounted on a rifle, next to about a 4X20 scope? Probably it would need to be mounted on a tripod to get the high angles, like a tiny AA gun. Would the sound detection get the rifle onto the target at low visual power? Might work against the small stuff that the Podunk PD has in their inventory.

It would be interesting to brainstorm solutions to Big Brother’s looming eyes in the sky.

Department of Homeland Security's need for "routine access to U.S. airspace"

There seems to be a disconnect here for aviation safety.

During fair weather, VFR rules state each pilot of an aircraft see and avoid others. For drones, the "pilot" could never see as good as a manned aircraft, therefore the drones would need to rely on the up and coming ADS-B technology, where new required transponders would replace the current 1940's radar technology. Only problem is that the gov wants drones now, but ADS-B won't be required on all aircraft for another 8 years...

5
posted on 05/24/2012 8:41:25 PM PDT
by C210N
("ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate" (Breitbart, 2012))

It would be interesting to brainstorm solutions to Big Brothers looming eyes in the sky.

Until CWII starts, blasting little ones out of the sky is problematic. At some point they'll start using acoustic gear to locate the report from the muzzle. Silencers will be at a premium. Tactics at rural marijuana fields need to be monitored, if possible.

I wonder what a 1000mw laser would do to their optics? Sure, it is against the law to aim one at a piloted aircraft, but what about a drone? If you do it from a remote site, then leave before ground forces can come in, how are they going to catch you?

On the other hand, I am almost hoping Romney gets the Republican nomination; simply because I've noticed that the GOP (as a party) makes no effort whatsoever to further it's stated party planks. You know, things like: smaller government, responsible spending, illegalizing abortion, firearm freedom (NFA and GCA's continued existence and acceptance proves that). So, I end up feeling that as-an-association the party laughs at the 'stupid, bitter, bible & gun clinging rubes' they fooled... at least the Democrat party is honest in a) stating what it wants and b) putting forth an effort to get a done.

(I'm under 30, so I have no memory of anything prior to Clinton in a political sense, and didn't really become interested in politics until years later.)

21
posted on 05/24/2012 11:19:51 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Well I am sure we will have a few airliners get knocked from the sky from all the stupid drones. Whats a few hundred peons, when there is military spying to do against your citizens? I am sure they can blame it on terrorists, just fail to mention that the terrorists were the Muslims in the White House.

25
posted on 05/25/2012 1:19:19 AM PDT
by American in Israel
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

I don’t think breaking the laws against using our military hardware against our own citizens is safety. It’s illegal.

But then, when you have the judges in your pocket, stealing MF Globals cash and deposits can be made legal, that is, if your a part of the Obama team. Obamas political fund stole 1.6 thousand Million dollars of deposits by brazenly misapplying the bankruptcy laws.

Obama has also written himself the right to execute any Americans he wishes, inside or outside the country, the judges say its legal.

Funny, but breaking the Oath of Office may seem easy, but God, WILL judge these pukes. Hope Obama likes the ride, cause its leading him to Hell for eternity. I pity the man, he has destroyed the financial lives of a billion people.

And he will repay it all...

26
posted on 05/25/2012 1:28:13 AM PDT
by American in Israel
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

This is about as stark a preemptive move against potential uprisings as we`ll ever see. We`ll begin hearing stories of mysterious, destructive explosions in our neighborhoods. And, of course, government officials will have no comment.

And the mindless millions of Americans have no clue what is happening around them. Freedom is waning by the day, and they can`t even pull their heads out of their asses long enough to wave goodbye.

Where and when have the rats been honest about advancing its marxist agenda?

Um, pretty much all of Obama's 2008 campaign. (Spread the wealth, civil security force, etc.) Reid, IIRC, publicly stated that the single-payer system was the [ultimate] goal of their healthcare reforms. (I think this was about a month before the "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" remark from Pelosi.) Speaking of Pelosi, the derisive laugh and "are you serious?" dismissal of the question as to the origin of Constitutional authority of Obamacare was quite honest. The gun-control push has really been quite open; yes they try to sneak it into some bills as amendments, but it's still working toward a stated goal; furthermore, the bills aren't really secret (otherwise how would we have "contact your rep threads?). And, more specifically addressing your question, all the pushes for more regulation/oversight are exactly that. (See this.)

Just because you use different words for something doesn't mean that it's not the same idea that's being expressed; an example from computer science is the recent popularity of Just-In-Time compilation, which N. Wirth pioneered in the 80's [IIRC, could've been the 70's] under the name Delayed Emission.

37
posted on 05/25/2012 7:32:51 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

You're making my point. They can't be explicitly honest in their rhetoric. They can't use actual marxist terminology, so they are reduced to using all these euphemisms. Cognoscenti on both sides of the political spectrum understand it and know what their intentions are, but it goes over the head of most of the "swing" vote that determines elections.

You don't have to believe me, but look at it this way. How did they take over Congress in 2006 and expand their majorities in 2008? They ran prolife candidates like Bob casey in PA and a bunch of pro Second Amendment candidates all over the country. Why do you think there hasn't been any serious gun grabbing after they took over the Congress in 2007?

They bared their souls after Obama won in 2008. They reaped the whirlwind in 2010. Why do you think 7 rats in the Senate decided to retire this year?

Looks like it's not just Texas that loves the idea of drones spying on citizens, I mean helping law enforcement, Virginia loves them too. It really sickens me that so-called Republicans like McDonnell are so quick to support drones.

Then again, I've had FReepers tell me that Montgomery County, Texas is a Conservative area, and yet they were among the first, if not the first county in the nation to have a local law enforcement agency buy a drone and start using it. I have yet to hear about any so-called Conservatives removing those county officials from office.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.